[pct-l] The weapons question

Wed May 20 12:10:34 CDT 2009

Late last night I wrote an email to a friend that I want to share here.

I refer to one attack that happened to me early in 1974 and partially 
re-tell of another that happened later that summer. If I had not had those 
experiences, especially the one which was physical, my thoughts or questions 
on this subject would be more theoretical rather than practical. When I 
worked as a Backcountry Wilderness Ranger for Sierra NF I associated with 
many stock packers and public with horses and llamas and many of them were 
responsibly armed to protect their animals. I didn't fear the weapon, I 
trusted the person, got to know them, and it was forgotten. However, it was 
reassuring to know that someone in the backcountry was around to protect me 
with sufficient force should I need it. With the rise of the mountain lion 
in the south and the grizzly and wolf in the north, the anti-weapons 
question still doesn't make sense.
________________

If I had been attacked and mauled (or worse) back in '74, I would hope that 
I would have had it within my rights to effectively and definitively fight 
off my attacker. As it is now, I believe, if I were to shoot and/or kill a 
legitimately attacking bear in a NP, I would be imprisoned, lose my freedom, 
for doing so. In a NP I have greater fear because of just that possibility.

Later that same year I had a physical confrontation with another black bear 
that wanted my pack in the middle of the night. To make a long story short 
(one that I have written about before on this List), I actually hit that 
bear with my palm and he ran away! Had he decided to strike back, I would 
not be here today because I could not see him, only sense that he was near.

Weapons do not have to be of lethal force to be effective. As you pointed 
out, a pepper-blaster might be handy in scaring a bear, lion, or wolf off 
someone who is going through the horrors of an attack, but it may just piss 
the animal off and make things worse for both victim and rescuer. But 
less-than-lethal force is a good place to start, regarding any attack, human 
or animal. However, should that line of defense or rescue fail and things go 
from bad to worse, at least having the legal option of utilizing lethal 
force if necessary would still be there as back-up.

It would be horrific to hear an attack happening at a campsite not far from 
yours and you have nothing within your powers to help save the life of the 
man, woman, or child victim. If I were being attacked, I would want my 
rescuer to have everything at his disposal to drive off or kill the animal 
that is tearing the flesh off my living, breathing, conscious body and 
shaking me to death. If I were the rescuer, it would be equally horrific (I 
can't even imagine it) to helplessly watch another man, woman, or child be 
torn apart before my eyes while hearing the screams and pleas and I could do 
nothing definitive, even if it just pissed off the attacking animal. If I 
wish to be helpless in the grip of my predator, that is my choice, but I do 
not wish to deny the right to life of another nor to deny my rescuer the 
ability to save me, even if that means to do so may not be definitively 
effective or that I may be killed by their efforts. It is their right to try 
to save me.

It amazes me how naive and idealistic people have become. In our efforts to 
save lives, we attempt to remove the current weapon of choice only to find 
that man still kills man by another method. Take away the gun and he will 
use the arrow. Take away the arrow and he will use the dart. Remove the dart 
and he will use the knife. Remove the knife and he will use the club. When 
the club is gone, he will use his hands. Its not the weapon, its the 
thoughts and intents of the heart. In our efforts to legislate human safety, 
supported by logic, science, and reason, we have forgotten the truths of 
how.

Oh, well. Can't hurt to ask....

Ned

p.s.: Bill, where do I get that dehydrated club, from the Pirate?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Burge" <bill at burge.com>
To: "pct list" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [pct-l] The weapons question

>
> Actually, in this day and age, they probably would.
>
> I haven't read the bill, but it was my understanding that it simply
> meant that if you have an existing permit, valid in the state where
> the park that you're visiting resides; it's legal for you to carry in
> the park.
>
> Previously, parks were allowed to make their own rules about carrying
> weapons inside their boundaries irrelevant of the local states's laws.
>
> (Even if we don't want to debate the whole 2nd amendment thing)
> Traveling with a firearm is complicated enough and carrying a loaded
> one even more so, imagine if you had to be aware every time you
> crossed an imaginary line on a map to know you could or could not
> carry.  Imagine if you still had to get individual permits in every
> park you passed through on the PCT.
>
> Personally, even my Glock is too heavy to pack on the trail, so I'm
> going to carry a BIG stick, concealed.  ;-)  Well, actually, I got the
> ultralight, collapsible, dehydrated one; so it fits in my pocket.
>
>
> BillB
>
>
>
> On May 20, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Fuzz McPherson wrote:
>
>> I do believe that's right, from what little I've glanced over the
>> proposal and from what I've seen previously.  It allows for
>> concealed carrying of a weapon without further permit, I believe.
>>
>> Realistically, if a bear comes to attack you, or some "entrepreneur"
>> in the woods who is "guarding" "his" pot growing land, and you use a
>> pistol that was on your hip in a holster, or had been in a
>> "concealed" location like say a pouch on the side of your pack, ...
>> I don't think the law is gonna come after you to take away your
>> birthday in either case.  "Bad boys, bad boys!  Whatcha gonna do!?
>> Whatcha gonna do when they come for you!???!"
>>
>> lol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Scott Bryce <sbryce at scottbryce.com>
>> To: pct list <pct-l at backcountry.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:09:55 AM
>> Subject: Re: [pct-l] The weapons question
>>
>> Mike Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> The question is why are guns allowed in a National Forest but not in
>>> a National Park. I believe that the reason has to do with hunting..
>>> If
>>> I am carrying a loaded weapon am I hunting or just prepared to defend
>>> myself?
>>>
>>> In Connecticut, where I live, hunting is not permitted on Sundays. If
>>> I carry a loaded weapon in the woods on a Sunday that alone is
>>> considered to be evidence of hunting.
>>>
>>> Not permitting weapons in a National Park makes hunting not a
>>> problem.
>>
>>
>> I don't think this is about hunting. I think this is about concealed
>> carry. That would mean personal defense weapons.
>>
>> If I am found in a national park with a loaded .38 caliber pistol, I
>> don't think anyone will think I have been hunting.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pct-l mailing list
>> Pct-l at backcountry.net
>> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pct-l mailing list
>> Pct-l at backcountry.net
>> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus 
> signature database 4091 (20090520) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> 